Premium
P300 and Feedback Provided by Absence of the Stimulus
Author(s) -
Ruchkin Daniel S.,
Sutton Samuel,
Munson Robert,
Silver Kenneth,
Macar Franfoise
Publication year - 1981
Publication title -
psychophysiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.661
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1469-8986
pISSN - 0048-5772
DOI - 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1981.tb03034.x
Subject(s) - stimulus (psychology) , psychology , audiology , event related potential , negative feedback , electroencephalography , developmental psychology , cognitive psychology , neuroscience , physics , medicine , quantum mechanics , voltage
This experiment is concerned with the issue of functional equivalence of emitted (in response to ahsence of a stimulus) and evoked (in response to presentation of a stimulus) P300s. Subjects attempted to estimate a 600‐msec time interval hy the method of reproduction. Subjects were informed whether the time interval was under‐ or overestimated and whether the estimation error magnitude was within a limit (“correct” estimate, positive feedback) or exceeded the limit (“incorrect,” negative feedback). This feedback was presented by means of either a single event or a combination of two events. Each event consisted of a pair of stimuli. Emitted, as well as evoked, early fronto‐central and late parietal P3OOs were elicited by the feedback event regardless of whether positive or negative feedback was delivered, and regardless of whether feedback was delivered by a single event or by the combination of two events. In addition, what appears to be a positive Slow Wave was found following the first stimulus ofthe feedback event when this stimulus was low intensity indicating an underestimation. The other condition (high intensity, overestimation) was followed by a CNV. Since these slow wave findings were serendipitous, counterbalancing was not available to determine whether intensity (low vs high) or information (underestimation vs overestimation) was responsible for the difference.